Expelled for burning

an item of clothing?

There surely has to be more to the story than we are being told but it seems that a boy in his final year has been expelled from his Catholic school for doing just that. 

If the story in the press is to be believed then he was one in a group of over twenty who took a jacket from someone in an opposing school's team and set it alight. This was not just any jacket either. It was a second hand jacket that had come from a charity shop. 

Yes, it was the wrong thing to do. The kid in question has admitted it. He is not the one who took the jacket. He was the one who, after attempts by others, managed to set fire to it. It all sounds very much like the sort of thing that can happen when a bunch of boys get together, get excited, egg one another on and then find themselves in strife. 

It doesn't make them "bad" boys. It doesn't even mean they will ever do anything like that again. That's unlikely given what has happened. But was an offence which should have resulted in expulsion? The media thinks not. 

What is particularly interesting here is that the kid in question has admitted he was wrong. He has apologised. His parents are not saying he is a little angel. The school has admitted to only two instances where he has received detention - one for throwing paper from an upper floor and the other for throwing an egg outside the school grounds. If that is the worst he has done then he doesn't sound too bad to me. He could of course be a bully, a liar, a thief or something equally awful but there is absolutely no suggestion he is any of these things. His expulsion means he cannot finish his final year at school and it means that his entire future is now in question. It is a punishment which seems to be far in excess of the crime committed.

Why the school has taken this stance is a mystery. It is the subject of a column in the paper and half the editorial. I wonder what will happen next and I am very glad I am not the school principal dealing with the situation. If he is not regretting his actions then I would wonder why he is the principal.

I can remember some misbehaviour at schools I attended. I was no saint but there was no suggestion that I be expelled for sending a paper dart from one side of the room to the other. I got detention for that - and the same number of lines to write as everyone else. (It was a far worse punishment for me as it took me a lot, lot longer to write them.) Looking back we considered the day we all threw a paper dart at the same time as "fun".

There was the occasion on which one of the most senior boys put sugar in the petrol tank of a teacher who, he felt, had humiliated him. That was dealt with by the Senior Cat quietly but firmly. The boy did not put a foot out of line again for the rest of the year. He did not come back the following year but that was his choice. He simply wanted to leave school and work on the farm. He's a grandfather now and a responsible citizen. 

Graffiti was dealt with by having to remove it - in full view of everyone else during lunch time. Fist fights were dealt with by apologies and, depending on the severity, some sort of activity which required cooperation between the warring parties. Littering meant you spent lunch time clearing rubbish. 

Had someone managed to burn an item of clothing I suspect the Senior Cat would have informed the parents of the kid involved and made the kid pay for it after the usual apologies. The parents would have backed the Senior Cat and I cannot think of any parent who, back then, would have paid for the damage themselves. It would have come out of pocket money.

So, what's going on here? This seems to have been blown out of all proportion. Unless there is something we are not being told then this is not punishment to fit a crime. It is something else altogether.